Augustine and Pelagius Pt 3: Original Sin, Augustine and Infant Baptism.

In Augustine’s debate with the Pelagians, the doctrine of Original Sin came to the forefront very early on. The denial of Original Sin by the Pelagians led Augustine to another conclusion: They will soon deny infant baptism.

Infant Baptism and Original sin were intricately tied together for Augustine. Infant baptism proved Original Sin, while at the same time, Original Sin necessitated Infant Baptism.

When a parent brought a child for baptism, this was acknowledged:

“[Christ] came to call not the righteous, but sinners…For who would dare to say that Christ is not the Savior and Redeemer of infants?” (On Forgiv. Bapt. Chpt 24,33)

This did not mean all baptized infants were saved by the mere fact that they were baptized. Indeed: “many who seem to be on the outside are in fact on the inside, and many who seem to be on the inside are neverless in fact on the outside.” (Bapt. 5.27.38)

But if baptism does not assure salvation or even indicate predestination, why perform infant baptism? Beyond the biblical covenantal considerations already considered, it would be beneficial to consider Augustine’s close connection between original sin and infant baptism. The image in an infant baptism becomes the image we all experience in salvation:

God comes to us in our infirmity, our helplessness, our inability to feed ourselves, and blindness to our need and gives to us grace. Why baptize infants? Because they are sinners in need of a Savior, and a parent acknowledges this every time they bring a child for baptism. The confession of a person’s salvation becomes the confession of God’s coming to him, and confessing God’s initiative. The adult convert who is baptized is not allowed to see this as an acknowledgment of his decision and then God’s response, but is taught every time he sees an infant baptized, THIS is the story of your conversion, God’s initiation, not yours.

In fact, the practice of bringing infants to Christ is as old as the time when Christ walked the earth. In Luke 18:15-18, mothers bring their children to Jesus to bless. The disciples rebuke the mothers, but Jesus in turn rebukes them saying “let the children come to me, do not hinder them…whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Clement has a great line commenting on this verse that "mothers still bring their children for Jesus to touch."

Whoever receives the kingdom is one who is brought without their own ability, as one without ability to save themselves.

Augustine and Pelagius Pt 2: What is the moral capacity of fallen man?

[sorry, I am low on time, so Part 2 may be a little sketchy and less complete than my original outline in teaching this. I might correct it later...]

The story of St. Augustine is largely known from his autobiography “The Confessions.” Augustine, especially in this work, The Confessions, exerted more influence than any figure previously or since on Western Civilization. Within this book, Augustine posits the priority of grace and God’s initiative in salvation. Within the book, Augustine pens a prayer that becomes popular:

"Lord command what you will, and will what you command" or
“Lord command what You wish, and grant what You command.”

Augustine believed that God must grant us the power and grace to do anything that God commands.

On the other side of the Roman Empire, Pelagius labored to minister to English sailors. Pelagius found this popular prayer of Augustine to be a perscription for licence. If God has commanded us, then this implies we are able to perform that which God commands, Pelagius retorted.

The Question at hand was: What is the moral capacity of fallen man?

Pelagius, as stated, believed that man was capable of fulfilling the will of God in his own power. Adam had set an unfortunate example, but Christ is our perfect example, the model of what our obedience should be.

Augustine, on the other hand, said Adam’s sin killed us, and our moral capacity is dead. (Eph 2:1,5) What man requires in order to do anything God commands is the restoration of his life. If we see anything in us that is worthy of calling good, Augustine turned to his favorite verse in the debate, 1 Cor 4:7:

1 Cor 4:7 – “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”

In the debate, Pope Zosimus defended Pelagius. The church, however, condemned Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus. Vindicating Augustine’s position. The Council of Orange even confirmed Augustine’s position that the good of faith must be said to be from God as well, stating in Canon 5:

“ the increase of faith…also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly …[is] a gift of grace ”


This seemed to create a problem. The question then has to be answered, if the early church insisted that man was responsible for their own sin, how is it that man is free, yet God must draw them?

Augustine drew a distinction between coersion and inevitability: God coerses no man against his will, but all whom God draws come.

How did Augustine explain this seeming contradiction?

It is worth a lengthy quotation from Augustine's commentary on John 6:44-45:

Thence also He says here, if thou turn thy attention to it, "No man cometh to me except he whom the Father shall draw." Do not think that thou art drawn against thy will. The mind is drawn also by love. …"How can I believe with the will if I am drawn?" I say it is not enough to be drawn by the will; thou art drawn even by delight. What is it to be drawn by delight? "Delight thyself in the Lord, and He shall give thee the desires of thy heart." There is a pleasure of the heart to which that bread of heaven is sweet. Moreover, if it was right in the poet to say, "Every man is drawn by his own pleasure," --not [compulsion], but pleasure; not obligation, but delight,--how much more boldly ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ when he delights in the truth, when he delights in blessedness, delights in righteousness, delights in everlasting life, all which Christ is?... … for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." This revealing is itself the drawing. Thou holdest out a green twig to a sheep, and thou drawest it. Nuts [candies] are shown to a child, and he is attracted; he is drawn by what he runs to, drawn by loving it, drawn without hurt to the body, drawn by a cord of the heart.

Another illustration in a different sense may be given. If a group of blindfolded people are running for a cliff and you take the blindfold off of some, they will stop running for the cliff. They choose not to run over the side, yet they would do no other action when they are given sight. The same with God, all who are given sight can do no other than be drawn to Him, drawn by the delight of His Glory, for they can do no other.

Augustine and Pelagius Pt. 1: Free Will and the Early Church

When explaining the Christian beliefs, eventually you will come across a wide spread belief in American culture of a benevolent passive God. If you explain that God is good and offers life in His Son, a response will come back that if God is good he will save everyone and wouldn’t be so “not nice” as to send anyone to hell. For a good example of how an informed Christian should respond, see Tim Keller’s talk at Berkley. However, I am not addressing that problem here.

But just like our need to have an answer to the modern objection of passive benevolence, so the early church had to respond to the Greco-Roman culture of their time when presented with the gospel. The early church, in proclaiming the gospel, encountered resistance to the idea that people are responsible before God for their actions. In pagan and Stoic philosophy, the idea (and eventually god) “Fortuna” ruled the universe. To the typical Greco-Roman, everything is fated. To say our sinfulness can be counted against us is to not realize that Fate had made them do bad things, thus they are not responsible.

This philosophy is called Fatalism. True Fatalism destroys human responsibility for sin. Fatalists do not look to a Savior, as they are not responsible for their sin, and thus are in no need of action on their part to find a solution. What will be will be so why worry about it?

This background is essential in understanding the writings of the early church. Much of the New Testament literature argues for Christianity in the background of a Judaic understanding of God and the world. After the New Testament, the early church literature can be seen as a development of what Paul started in Acts 17 in dialoging with the Athenians. One must enter the thought world of an alien culture in order to help them understand another culture. Thus Paul uses the language of Athenian religion and literary culture to communicate ideas to them.

If one reads the early church, one inevitably comes across the phrase “free will.” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all talk about it. Many times Reformed Christians can see such references as a misunderstanding of human nature, just as Arminians can see these references as supporting their Enlightenment ideas of a libertarian free will (as Norm Geisler does in just listing the references as if they are definitive because they use the buzz words “free will")

Paying attention to the context, however, we see that the sense and concept they argue for, we too must acknowledge. Clement says the will is “self-determined” but also “nothing happens apart from the will of God” and thus God “permits evil.” Irenaeus wrote that “there is no coercion with God.” Archellaus wrote “To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift.” All these statements we must acknowledge as true. That we sin is our responsibility. We cannot appeal to fate or providence as an excuse, for we “are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

These truths lead to other inevitable questions: Then, are we responsible for our good too? Is salvation our choice? Isn’t true freedom the ability to choose neutrally between good and evil?

These questions were answered differently by two of the church’s rising stars: Pelagius and Augustine. [Part 2, forthcoming]